A friend asked me if it’s blasphemous to credit the
Koran with containing predictive (i.e., inspired) prophecies? He posed this
question in reference to Joel Richardson’s books on the allegedly Muslim
identity of the Antichrist.

It’s a
complicated question to answer, for different answers are possible, given
different assumptions.

i) To begin with, there are
different theories concerning the nature of Muhammad’s “prophetic” experience.

ii) On the one hand, there
are naturalistic explanations. For instance, some people attribute his trances
to epileptic seizures.

iii) Conversely, the Koran
may simply be a product of Muhammad’s garbled, hearsay knowledge of the Bible,
supplemented by his imagination or improvisation.

I’m not qualified to comment
on (ii), and we need to guard against the secular scepticism. For instance,
there are infidels who apply that explanation to Ezekiel.

I find (iii) perfectly
plausible, although that’s not the only plausible explanation.

iv) However, naturalistic
explanations don’t rule out precognition. On this view, Muhammad really could
foresee the future, but his ability to do so would have a natural explanation.

For instance, some paranormal
researchers who accept precognition explain it by appeal to quantum mechanics
and/or retrocausation.

One problem with that
approach is that appeals to quantum mechanics or retrocausation to ground
precognition raise more questions than the phenomenon they propose to explain.

v) On the other hand, there
are supernaturalistic explanations. Perhaps Muhammad did get his information
from an angel. After all, there are fallen angels as well as heavenly angels.

I’m open to that explanation
as well. However, attributing his prophetic foresight (assuming he had any) to
demonic inspiration only relocates the original question. For that raises the
question of how, whether, or to what degree Satan or demons can foresee the
future.

However, this is presumably
limited. For instance, consider how Isaiah deploys the argument from prophecy
to debunk idolatry (Isa 40-48). If, however, demonically-inspired prophets could
foresee whatever divinely-inspired prophets could foresee, then that would
cancel out Isaiah’s argument.

vii) On what basis can evil
spirits predict the future? One possibility is that this is just an educated
guess. Evil spirits are better at guessing the future than we are because they
are more knowledgeable than we are. They can take more variables into account
when they extrapolate from the present to the future. They get lucky more often
than your run-of-the-mill psychic or astrologer.

viii) As a rule,
extrapolating future events from present conditions is more reliable for events
in the near future rather than the distant future. The future is less
predictable the farther out you go because the variables multiply and ramify
exponentially. So this explanation would only work for short-term predictions
rather than long-term predictions.

Of course, some things like a
solar eclipse or Halley’s comet are easy to predict far in advance. But that’s
not the type of phenomenon we’re discussing.

ix) Another explanation is
that demons can make an accurate prediction by causing the future event.
Because demons are immortal, a demon could presumably predict an event 1000
years from now, and still be around to make it happen a 1000 years later.

In addition, demons can make
somethings happen by tapping human or animal agents to do their bidding. So
this explanation might work for certain long-term predictions.

x) However, even (viii) has
limitations. We don’t know that demons wield any direct power over inanimate
nature–although that might be one explanation for reported cases of
psychokinesis.

Likewise, they can’t possess
just anyone they please. Even among unbelievers there seems to be a natural
barrier to possession unless the unbeliever has a special susceptibility to
possession. Unless he does something to lower his resistance or invite the
demon in.

xi) In addition, there’s a
difference between small-scale and large-scale events. Large-scale events may
require more participants, more coordination, more intervening events leading
up to the denouement. That’s harder to prearrange.

xii) And, of course, God can
simply scotch demonic schemes. They can only do as much as he allows them to
do.

One can imagine God stringing
gullible demons along, letting them think they’re making progress. Winning.
Then letting them down hard.

Indeed, isn’t that exactly
how God played Satan? The devil “won” on Good Friday, but lost on Easter
Sunday. He ended up contributing to his own defeat.

xiii) Finally, none of this
is really applicable to Richardson’s claims. That’s because Richardson’s
projections aren’t based on Muhammad’s predictions, but Mahdism. That’s not the
product of Muslim prophets. To my knowledge, it doesn’t even claim to have its
source in Islamic prophetism.

Rather, it simply represents
an internal development in Shiite theology. You begin with certain axiomatic
ideas. These, in turn, give rise to certain possibilities or implications.

It’s like the Star Trek
canon. This began with Gene Roddenberry. He laid down certain narrative “facts”
or parameters. That establishes the general framework for further elaboration.
To some extent, later directors and screenwriters build on that, although they
allow themselves considerable license in modifying or contradicting the
original framework. It’s fairly fluid.

Mahdism is theological
fiction. Given certain agreed-on starting-points, it can be developed in this
or that direction. But don’t confuse it with reality. It’s building on a false
premise.

Generally speaking, non-open
theist Arminians do not want to include open theists among their ranks or treat
open theism as a variation of Arminianism.

I think there are political
reasons for that. Among evangelicals, anyway, Arminianism has long been
accepted as a respectable tradition even by most Reformed evangelicals who
strongly disagree with it. Arminians were among the founders of the National
Association of Evangelicals. Who can seriously doubt that John Wesley should be
considered evangelical? Yes, of course, there are those Calvinists and
Lutherans who would like to own the label “evangelical” and exclude Arminians,
but that’s not widely accepted by the movers and shakers of evangelicalism. If
open theism can be considered Arminian, that gives open theists more of a
voice, a place at the table, among evangelicals.

On the other hand, anti-open
theist Arminians, even some Arminians sympathetic to open theism, don’t want it
included as even a variety of Arminianism because gives credence to the
Calvinist critics’ claim that Arminianism leads to open theism (which they claim
is heresy).

Some years ago I helped start
an organization of evangelical Arminians. I didn’t argue that open theists
should be included because I understood the political ramifications of that.
The organization intended to introduce an organized, trans-denominational voice
for Arminians among evangelicals. The thought was that including open theists
would cause Calvinist critics to lump the whole organization together as
heresy-friendly. It would play into the hands of those who claim that
Arminianism leads to open theism.

Amid all the navel-gazing that Republicans have been doing about “messaging”, and the state of conservatism in America -- what “the voters have overwhelmingly told us” – there is another problem, much more simple, that may have been caused by a technological failure in Romney’s “get-out-the-vote” (GOTV) effort.

The story at the right is from a blog article by a writer named John Ekdahl who evidently provided a first-person account of having been one of the Romney volunteer brought in to use the system:

From the very start there were warning signs. After signing up, you were invited to take part in nightly conference calls. The calls were more of the slick marketing speech type than helpful training sessions. There was a lot of "rah-rahs" and lofty talk about how this would change the ballgame.

Working primarily as a web developer, I had some serious questions. Things like "Has this been stress tested?", "Is there redundancy in place?" and "What steps have been taken to combat a coordinated DDOS attack or the like?", among others. These types of questions were brushed aside (truth be told, they never took one of my questions). They assured us that the system had been relentlessly tested and would be a tremendous success.

On one of the last conference calls (I believe it was on Saturday night), they told us that our packets would be arriving shortly. Now, there seemed to be a fair amount of confusion about what they meant by "packet". Some people on Twitter were wondering if that meant a packet in the mail or a pdf or what. Finally, my packet arrived at 4PM on Monday afternoon as an emailed 60 page pdf.

Ekdahl’s article continued to describe his frustrations with having to print out a document, unclear instructions on how to use the system, etc.

Here's how Orca was supposed to work. On election day, the Romney campaign would deploy 34,000 volunteers with an Orca mobile web app in swing states to monitor turnout. In Boston Garden (now called TD Garden), 800 staffers would direct get-out-the-vote efforts in key precincts based on incoming data from volunteers on the ground and other sources.

The Romney campaign further described what Orca would do on Election Day:

The general idea is to conduct the world's largest exit poll. Through Project ORCA, at any given moment we will know the current ballot in every State, DMA & County.... For example: if we happen to be down in a state at lunch time, we can pinpoint exactly what is causing it. So, if we know we're going to win X state by 3 points, let's move our resources to Y state, county. In sum, Project ORCA will give us an enormous advantage by being able to know the current result of a state.

It is estimated that Project ORCA will decipher [how] 18 to 23 million people have voted by the time all voting has concluded. This massive "sample size" not only ensure the most accurate ballot projections ever, but it will also ensure hyper-accuracy of our supporter targeting as we work to turn them out to the polls.

"We are going to know more than the exit polls will be able tell us because we will know who voted in which precinct, and based on micro-targeting we know who that person likes"…

The Romney campaign described purpose of this the effort: “based on the data, the Romney campaign could take action to boost voter participation. "If we know that there is a low turnout in one of our target precincts, then we can lob phones into them...we'll send a robocall, or whatever, or our state offices will have volunteers to pick up the phone and say, 'Have you voted yet, go to precinct here.'"

This effort was supposed to be the technological foundation an advanced “get-out-the-vote” effort the campaign would be running in the swing states.

However, as it turns out, the data collection effort failed on a broad scale. “There were reports that the Orca app crashed on Election Day, and wasn't beta-tested sufficiently”, CNET said.

The collapse of the ORCA platform is all the more astonishing because of how aggressively the Romney campaign hyped it in advance of Nov. 6.

Centinello was quoted in The Huffington Post on Nov. 1 touting ORCA to volunteers in these grandiose terms: “There’s nothing that the Obama data team, there’s nothing that the Obama campaign, there’s nothing that President Obama himself can do to even come close to what we are putting together here.”

But for operatives within the Romney orbit, there was reason for skepticism even before the system went down on Election Day. Strategists in the states never got a chance to test-drive ORCA, which would have left them unfamiliar with the software on Tuesday even if it had worked.

Ekdahl concluded:

So, the end result was that 30,000+ of the most active and fired-up volunteers were wandering around confused and frustrated when they could have been doing anything else to help. Like driving people to the polls, phone-banking, walking door-to-door, etc. We lost by fairly small margins in Florida, Virginia, Ohio and Colorado. If this had worked could it have closed the gap? I sure hope not for my sanity's sake.

Obama entirely relied on his people. There’s a reason they call it “thick as thieves.” I know many are trying to harpoon that white whale that ended everything, but we have to ask a different question. If a winner lost, how did a loser win?

Votermom looks at the real ground game of the Obama campaign. The reason Chicago politics work is not only because of the illegality, it also relies on the tireless efforts of cronies to harass and threaten voters. Pat Caddell’s much envied Obama “data mining” operation seemed to consist of lists of registered voters who had not requested an absentee ballot or early voted. The campaign then paid people to call them daily until they either got a ballot or voted. I guess we know where that 7.8% unemployment figure came from.

Of course, the harassment was also personal and constant to certain persuadable groups like union workers and the inner cities. The county political identification maps are nice for a Republican to look at because they are vastly red. The downfall is that people in Democrat counties are packed like rats. A GOTV operation can hit thousands of people with just a busload of volunteers.

It seems to me that, at least at one level, the failure is pretty clear. The Romney campaign put a lot of its eggs into a technological basket that seems to have had a hole in it.

Friday, November 09, 2012

All this arguing about
bunches of cells vs human life. Look at it the same way you look at death. A
fetus isn't a "human being/life" until viable, which I realize is
changing, but until that fetus can live and breathe on its own outside the
womb, it's not "alive". It's so funny how people can be so opposed to
abortion, but when people are on their death bed, on life-support, whether at
age 20 or 90, once they can't live and breathe on their own the agreement is
almost always to pull the plug. Why? Because living and breathing on your own
is a requirement for life! They aren't alive. They aren't a "life"
anymore. A fetus, until viable, isn't a "life". My 2 cents, as a
Christian and nurse.

steve hays

November 9, 2012 at 3:08 PM

I see. So as a "Christian nurse," you
don't think old folks who use portable oxygen tanks are even alive. Likewise,
you don't think asthmatics who use inhalers are even alive.

Nice to see the depth of your Christian
understanding. Remind me to avoid the hospital where you work.

LJ

“I think the person in the
violinist example has every right to pull the plug.”

Big deal. Jarvis deliberately
designed her thought-experiment to evoke that reaction. She invented a
hypothetical situation which was intended to make her position as sympathetic
as possible. So she’s manipulating the reader.

But that’s a decoy. The
question isn’t whether you’d have a right to disconnect yourself from another
patient on life support. The real question is whether that’s properly analogous
to parental duties.

It’s striking how many
abortionists are duped by the hypothetical. Remember, though, that this is an
argument from analogy. The question is not whether you agree with the
hypothetical analogy, but whether the hypothetical analogue is, in fact,
parallel to the relationship between a mother and her child.

“And would actually have the
right to take violent retaliation if they are really being forced. Life support
involves the other person be attached the entire time. That means he could
literally not go where he wants to go for 9 whole months.”

i) To begin with, that’s
disanalogous to the situation of a pregnant woman. Most pregnant women can
continue to go wherever they want.

ii) However, let’s play along
with the comparison. Sophia Loren has two sons. But she was prone to
miscarriage. In order to carry two pregnancies to term, she had to put her
movie career on hold and confine herself to bed for months.

For her motherhood was worth
it. Pity some many women lack that maternal instinct.

“This makes the bodies of
every citizen the constant status as a criminal.”

What does that even mean in
the context of pregnancy?

“It is a prison.”

Pregnancy isn’t equivalent to
house arrest. You need to get a grip on your emoting and think straight.

“The force makes the person
in the example have the right to utilize the self defense argument. The
attachment is the attack. The effect on your body is the attack.”

Pregnancy is the way in which
all of us, including feminists, come into this world. It’s morbidly fascinating
to see this seething hostility towards the critic’s own source of being. Talk
about biting the hand that feeds you. We all began in the womb. To demonize
pregnancy is thankless and perverse.

“I don't see how this is
different than arguing that if rape sustained life, you could force it.”

I don’t know what that’s
supposed to mean. Rape doesn’t sustain life. On rare occasion it produces life.

“The lack of consent
concerning your body is what makes sexual violence so traumatic. You'd be being
raped by the state. I have seen no argument on this thread that was really that
insightful and addressing this specifically.”

i) Of course, “rape by the
state” is hyperbolic nonsense.

ii) In addition, not all duties
are contingent on consent. For instance, take a man who married a women who
later develops a degenerative illness. And this isn’t just hypothetical. Daniel
Barenboim’s wife (Jacqueline du Pré) developed MS. Likewise, John Feinberg’s
wife (Patricia) developed Huntington’s disease.

Neither husband had that in
mind when they married. There was no informed consent in that respect. And it’s
quite possible that had they known ahead of time what would happen, they would
have married someone else instead. But having married the woman in question,
they now have spousal duties to their ailing wife.

Of course, the abortionists
on this thread might bite the bullet and say, “Sure, dump your sick wife! That
wasn’t part of the bargain doing in. Desert your wife in her hour of greatest
need.”

And if that’s your position,
then that’s just one more reason why atheism is evil.

Or suppose your daughter is
crippled in a traffic accident. Now she needs lifelong care. Is it okay to
disown your daughter? Ditch her on the shoulder of the freeway and drive away?

“Furthermore, there is no
proof the of the God that is the foundation of the moral code that the
arguments lie in. As long as their argument is that God does not want us to do
it, it remains irrelevant b/c I do not believe the foundation even exists and
there is no evidence for it anywhere.”

All you’re doing is to assert
atheism. That’s no reason to take your assertion seriously.

steve hays

November 6, 2012 at 11:03 AM

LJ

“The lady in your example who
decided to do that made a choice. The government did not force her to. She
automatically does not fit into the category of people I am advocating for.”

i) You sound as if you never
heard of Sophia Loren.

ii) You absurdly compared
pregnancy to imprisonment. However, the condition of a pregnant woman is rarely
analogous to the condition of the woman in the hypothetical who’s confined to a
hospital bed to keep another patient alive. The thought-experiment of Jarvis is
highly artificial. Highly unrealistic.

iii) However, for the sake of
argument, I gave an example of the worst-case scenario. Sophia Loren was in
that situation. So what?

“I am not demonizing
pregnancy.”

When you compare pregnancy to
imprisonment, you’re demonizing pregnancy.

“I am arguing that the state should
not be able to make abortion illegal. I am demonizing the government forcing
individuals to carry their pregnancy to term when they don't want to
(especially abortions in the first stages of pregnancy)”

That objection has already
been rebutted multiple times on this very thread. Try to keep up with the
actual state of the argument instead of rehashing stale talking-points.

“They can legally get a
divorce their spouse. They are allowed to leave them within the confines of the
law.”

You’re not following your own
argument. You made lack of consent the deal-breaker.

i) My point is that a person
can acquire social obligations absent informed consent. Try to keep track of
the argument.

ii) Your appeal to current
law is circular. We could toughen up divorce laws. Divorce laws used to be
stricter. The law is whatever we make the law to be.

“Atheism is not a moral
system or code. It is a lack of belief in God. Nothing more, nothing less.
Atheists have nothing in common inherently besides this.”

Atheism has logical
implications. So your statement is irrational.

“Also, it depends on the
relationship. I had someone in my life whom was with an abusive partner who got
diagnosed with cancer. They had to leave them in order to escape abuse and an
unhealthy relationship. Context matters.”

Which is disanalogous to
pregnancy. Context matters.

“No I am telling you why your
main argument means nothing to me. I literally don't think God is real. I only
mention it to give you an idea of what it means to me when you add God to your
argument.”

And when we subtract God from
the argument, we end up with nihilism. You’re illustrating the sociopathic
consequences of atheism. Thanks for the reminder. That’s one more reason to
reject atheism.

“But really all your examples
are in the hypothetical as much as mine.”

i) Which misses the point.
You’re acting as though, just because you’d unplug the violinist, that this
somehow justifies abortion. But that’s a diversionary tactic.

For the argument to work, you
have to show that the situation of the woman in the hypothetical is relevantly
analogous to a pregnant woman. Once again, try to be logical.

iii) Furthermore, there’s a
difference between a totally artificial hypothetical (like the Violinist), and
a hypothetical with many real world analogues.

“I keep saying over and over,
I think the circumstance of the person being inside the other person completely
changes everything about the argument.”

It’s not just “one person
inside another person.” It’s a baby inside its mother. That’s a relationship
with built-in social obligations. Maternal duties.

“My opinion is based on the
specific instance of an unwanted pregnancy with its particular implications,
not the system of thinking itself. There is no more logical extreme to my
specific argument because the foundation is the fact that they are pregnant.”

And you’re rehashing
objections that have already been refuted in this very thread. You’ve done
nothing to advance the argument.

steve hays

November 6, 2012 at 2:39 PM

LJ

"Neither have you. The
arguments were never settled. You have never made a point that is impossible to
refute."

Then refute it.

"You don't get to decide
when a talking point is done."

Sure I do. I doubt you even
bothered to read through the entire comment thread before you commented. Rather,
you're a late-comer who jumped into the middle of an ongoing debate and
proceeded to recycle stock objections that have already been dealt with further
up the thread.

Since you haven't refuted
that material, you lose by default.

"For instance, the fact
that you think atheism is equated to nihilism is not evidence for God's
existence."

I never said otherwise. You
give no evidence that you're even acquainted with the arguments for God's
existence. What Christian philosophers or apologists have you studied?

steve hays

November 6, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Even if, for the sake of
argument, we cast abortion as a women’s rights issue, that would only warrant a
very restrictive abortion policy. That’s because roughly half of pregnancies
involve baby girls. So even if we treat this as a female-only issue, we’re
dealing with two females, not one.

And that also applies in
situations where rape results in pregnancy. Roughly half the babies conceived
in rape will be baby girls.

At best, then, even if we
cast abortion as a women’s rights issue, that would only justify aborting baby
boys, not baby girls. Yet how many feminists take that position? Are some women
more equal than others?

steve hays

November 6, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Throughout this thread,
Keith's argument for abortion takes physicalism for granted. That, however,
disregards philosophical and scientific arguments for dualism, such as Mario
Beauregard's Brain Wars, or the "hard problem" of consciousness.

Keith

November 6, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Yes; I agree with this statement, I am a
physicalist.

I know of exactly zero scientific arguments for
dualism. There are philosophical arguments for dualism and there are scientific
questions for which it is argued that dualism has explanatory power, but I know
of nothing testable about dualism, let alone evidence approaching the level of
scientific argument.

If I'm wrong on that, I'd be interested in a
pointer -- thanks!

steve hays

November 6, 2012 at 3:52
PM

Philosophical arguments
don't have to be testable. That's a category mistake. Given intractable
philosophical objections to physicalism which even atheists like Searle and
Chalmers champion, you can't simply treat physicalism as the default position
in this debate.

As for science, I
pointed you to the recent book by Mario Beauregard, who's a distinguish
neuroscientist. Chap. 8 of Rupert Sheldrake's Science Set Free presents another
scientific argument for dualism.

steve hays

November 6, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Keith

“Physicalism should be the default position
because we have never found anything that wasn't physical.”

ii) BTW, testing or finding something isn’t the
only way to establish its existence. There’s also a transcendental argument for
the indispensable explanatory power of abstract objects.

iii) You disregard arguments for abstract
objects (e.g. numbers, possible worlds). For instance, Roger Penrose is an
eminent physicist and mathematician who argues for the existence of abstract objects.
Cf. The Road to Reality, chap. 1.

“That doesn't prove we won't find something, but
physicalism has an unbroken track record over thousands of years.”

Well, the success of science depends on such
nonphysical entities as numbers, as well as mental causation and consciousness
(i.e. the mind of the scientist).

“An argument from utility certainly doesn't
equal evidence...”

Arguments against physicalism or for dualism
aren’t predicated on utility. Try again.

“…and in this particular case, the utter lack of
evidence of anything that isn't physical trumps the philosophical argument.”

You’re assuming what you need to prove.

“I understand Mario Beauregard is a
distinguished neuroscientist, but he is not making scientific arguments when he
talks about dualism. Ditto Rupert Sheldrake.”

Unless you read the material I cited, your
denial is a reflection of your knee-jerk prejudice.

“As I said, I have never seen any argument
supporting dualism that approached a ‘scientific argument.’”

It’s surprisingly easy not to see something if
you shut your eyes or turn your back.

“...but physicalism can explain them as far as
we can tell, and I would say that Occam's Razor applies.”

You have a simplistic grasp of simplicity. For
instance, there can be a tradeoff between a simpler theory and a richer
ontology, or vice versa.

steve hays

November 6, 2012 at 9:32 PM

Keith

"I think Sheldrake is
very, very unlikely to be proven correct in his theories."

That's a bait-n-switch. The
question at issue is not whether you think his theory of morphic causation is
correct, but the narrowing issue of his evidence for dualism re philosophy of
mind in chap. 8 of the book I referenced.

steve hays

November 7, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Take the sense of being
stared at, which he's extensively documented over the years. Or, in the next
chapter, take the case of the patient on 234-35 (pagination refers to the UK
edition).

steve hays

November 7, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Keith

“With respect to the sense of
being stared at, multiple subsequent studies attempted to repeat Sheldrake's
results and failed. Further, his study methodology has been attacked (if you
want references, let me know, but I'm sure you can Google as well as I can).
Bluntly, as his results can't be reproduced by anybody else, they're almost
certainly experimental bias or a badly designed experiment.”

I’ve seen shoddy efforts to
debunk Sheldrake. But if you think you have something better to offer, go
ahead.

“With respect to the accounts
of telepathy and precognition in Chapter 9 (you didn't say specifically, so I'm
guessing as to what you're referring), it's all anecdotal stories, and where
Sheldrake tries to approach the level of evidence, it's all uncontrolled,
unrepeatable experiments.”

i) You’re arbitrarily
restricting the evidence to protect your position. But there’s nothing wrong
with anecdotal evidence. Most of what we know is based on anecdotal or
testimonial evidence.

ii) You’re also assuming that
paranormal phenomena should operate with the same uniformity as “natural”
events. But to the degree that paranormal phenomena involve personal agency or
mental causation, it isn’t mechanically repeatable. You’re making another category
mistake.

“Maybe psychic phenomenon is
too subtle for our science to detect, maybe only an experimenter who
"believes" can reproduce the results. Those are possible
explanations. I think that's less probable than the fact all researchers make
mistakes, researchers are as prone as the rest of us to bias, and we can all be
fooled by our desire to believe. That is why we have the scientific method,
after all: if we were logical, rational beings, we wouldn't need it.”

I wasn’t attempting to make a
general case for the paranormal. Rather, I was citing a particular case which
intersects with dualism.

As far as evidence for the
paranormal generally, Stephen Braude has a number of philosophically rigorous
monographs on the subject.

“I hope I'm not rigid or irrational
about that belief: if there is evidence for dualism, I'd like to believe I'm
eager to be proven wrong and I assert it would be a tremendous thing to learn
about the universe and our place in it.”

To the contrary, it’s pretty
obvious that you’re a committed physicalist. Your throwaway disclaimers are
belied by your actual conduct.

steve hays

November 7, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Keith

“Google is all you need;
there are multiple studies, by multiple groups, all unable to reproduce his
results. There's simply nothing else to say.”

No. That’s not my job. You
raised the objection. The onus lies squarely on your shoulders to cite what you
think are the best studies by the most reputable groups. I hope you have
something a cut above CSICOP.

“I can't imagine how you
might justify that statement: first, most of what we ‘know’ is based on
science, and science is strongly antipathetic to anecdotal or testimonial
evidence. Please name a single broad area of human knowledge based on anecdotal
or testimonial evidence!”

Historical knowledge,
including the history of science. Or my personal knowledge of my own past. My
own observations and memories of people I’ve known, places I’ve lived. Or news
reports of contemporary events.

Likewise, a lot of science is
conducted outside the laboratory. Take a zoologist who studies wildlife in the
field.

“Second, it has been
well-studied: humans are genuinely bad reporters of events, and are often
mistaken in the big details and invariably mistaken in the little ones.”

That would undercut
experimental evidence, which relies on tedious observation.

“You have no evidential
support for this statement, you're simply using it as a way to avoid the fact
that paranormal phenomenon invariably fails any and all scientific testing.”

To the contrary, you’re
prejudging the nature of the paranormal, as if the paranormal ought to operate
like a chemical reaction. You’re view of science is prescriptive rather than
descriptive.

“In other words, if something
cannot be scientifically tested, it must be ‘special’. OK, fine, it's an
argument, but it's not a particularly good one.”

Many things can’t be
scientifically tested. I remember things my grandmother told me in private
conversations. Those remembered conversations can’t be scientifically tested.
Does that mean we should systematically doubt every memory that can’t be
scientifically tested?

You aren’t beginning with
reality. You aren’t beginning with human experience. Rather, you’re beginning
with your narrow, preconceived theory, then using that artificial filter to
screen out broad swaths of experienced reality.

steve hays

November 7, 2012 at 7:18
PM

Keith

"You're really
saying there's evidence for telepathy..."

Yes, there's evidence
for telepathy.

"...and it's my
responsibility to prove you wrong?"

If evidence for
telepathy dovetails with evidence for dualism, and you're arguing for
physicalism, then it's incumbent on you to refute the counterevidence (counter
to physicalism).

"Did I tell you my
cats juggle chainsaws when there's nobody in the room? (Refute me if you dare!
I patiently await your citations of the best studies by the most reputable
groups!)"

i) That wouldn't be
telepathy, that would be telekinesis. In fact, there's evidence for both.

ii) More to the point,
your illustration is a ploy. You ridicule the notion by using a made-up
example. Since you made it up, you can make it ridiculous–like Russell's celestial
teapot.

"That's exactly what it
means. We now know that every time your brain remembers an event, it rewrites
the memory. In other words, you are continually rewriting your memories as you
access them. This is why humans are so bad at reporting events after the
fact."

That's a gross overstatement.
Memories are often quite stable over time.

"There's a fair amount
research on this, including some recent publications in the context of a drug
intended to help you forget bad memories."

Your appeal is
self-defeating. You're appealing to your recollection of what these studies
say. But if every time you access your memory you rewrite it, then you can't
trust your memory of what the studies say.

"In summary, if your
memory is not validated by some outside, fixed context, or at least
corroborated by multiple people, there's little reason to believe it happened
the way you remember it happening."

That's viciously regressive.
Appeal to multiple attestation is a form of testimonial evidence. And it takes
for granted the collective memories of the corroborative witnesses.

steve hays

November 7, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Keith

"That's exactly what it
means. We now know that every time your brain remembers an event, it rewrites
the memory. In other words, you are continually rewriting your memories as you
access them. This is why humans are so bad at reporting events after the
fact."

Which instantly cuts the
ground out from under your appeal to experimental evidence. If memory is that
unstable, then scientists can't trust their recollection of the experimental
results.

Keith

“On the one hand, God says
abortion is murder. On the other hand, humans spontaneously abort roughly a
quarter of the time. If God thinks abortion is a bad thing, why would humans
naturally and unavoidably do it all of the time?”

i) To begin with, yes, God
has the right to do some things which humans don’t have the right to do.

ii) Many things happen in a
fallen world. People die of “natural causes” like cancer. That doesn’t mean
we’re entitled to induce cancer in people.

steve hays

November 6, 2012 at 3:47 PM

For someone who touts logic,
it's amusing to see DL caricaturing the arguments of his opponent. What we're
getting from DL isn't logic, but a fit of pique.

And this is the same guy who
resorted to the argumentum ad passiones fallacy by invoking his military
service to win sympathy for his position.

steve hays

November 7, 2012 at 9:58 AM

DL

“For starters: Why in the
world would you just assume that I'm a guy?”

You said you were a combat
vet. Women aren’t supposed to serve in combat. And even if the restrictions
have been relaxed in the past few years, you indicated that you were retired.
So that would be a while ago.

“You see, therein lies my
trouble with trying to dialogue with you.”

You’re not my dialogue
partner. You’re a foil.

“You make so many assumptions
about the other person's character and person before you even engage their
arguments.”

We can properly draw
inferences about someone’s moral character from their position on ethical
issues, viz. Peter Singer.

“The reason why I have ceased
to engage you on this topic, is not because of any perceived slight…”

I haven’t complained about
your refusal to engage the argument. It’s fine with me if you opt out.

“…but rather the inability to
have you answer a single objection on the terms in which the objection is made
and without committing any number of gross logical fallacies.”

That’s just your tendentious,
self-serving characterization, which you resort to as a substitute for actual
argument.

“For instance, please, do
tell how invoking my military service to this country and my willingness to lay
down my life in a combat environment -voluntarily- as a point of argumentation
for a citizen's "choice" is an ad passiones fallacy?”

Because it’s irrelevant to
whether or not there ought to be a rape exception. So your interjecting that
into the debate is a transparent emotional ploy to elicit bogus respect for
your proabortion position.

Your military record creates
no more presumption in favor of abortion than Wesley Clark’s military record.

“I only brought it up as a
minor point.”

I notice that some people
have a habit of raising points which suddenly become “minor” points after the
fact once their point is shot down.

“You avoided all of the
important points and got hung up on this one.”

I haven’t avoided any of your
points. By contrast, you’ve avoided the counterarguments.

“I chose not to belabor it
because it wasn't an essential piece; however, the point made still stands.”

Your point was knocked down.

“By your continued
mischaracterization of logical fallacies, you've demonstated that you've
probably not had any formal rhetoric training. Perhaps that is the crux of our
particular communication problem?”

Notice that throughout his
comment, DL hasn’t made a reasoned argument for his position. Instead, he tries
to characterize his opponent’s argument.

As I noted before, how people
react to comparisons is a test of their emotional maturity and critical
detachment, or lack thereof.

For instance, the example of
neonazis was used to illustrate the fact that beliefs can be culpable as well
as mistaken. That immoral beliefs reflect back on the moral character of their
proponent. That’s the level at which the comparison operates. For someone who
touts logic, DL’s reaction is illogical.

“Granted, I'm coming at this
as a person who was orphaned at birth and whose ‘biological parents’ have never
shown any parental concern in the sense you and Steve are arguing for."

In which case you should have
more compassion for children conceived in rape.

Not to mention that this is
yet another argumentum ad passiones on your part.

DL

November 7, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Steve Hays: "You’re not my dialogue
partner. You’re a foil."

Thank you very much for proving my point -
EXACTLY.

Let the entire above dialogue at November 7,
2012 at 9:58 AM serve as evidence as to why I do not engage with Mr. Hays.
Prayer is all that remains.

Peace, out,

-Deb

steve hays

November 7, 2012 at
11:38 AM

DL didn't come here to
be persuaded, but to persuade others. He's been using this forum as a platform
to lobby for his proabortion stance.

“We face a worldview
challenge that is far greater than any political challenge, as we must learn
how to winsomely convince Americans to share our moral convictions about marriage,
sex, the sanctity of life, and a range of moral issues.”

I agree with this, but in
all reality the only way that America will see and agree with any Biblical
moral conviction is not through our trying to convince them to agree with us.
It has and will utterly fail. The only way that the tide of immorality in
America will be stemmed is through the work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of
men. That means that the church needs to get off it pew and preach the gospel
message with all their heart, soul, and strength.

A question was raised to
me recently: “What would happen if the church actually lived as God calls us to
in scripture?” My answer: “Amazing things.” Including the changing of the moral
landscape in America.

steve hays

November 7, 2012 at 12:23
pm

There’s no
one-size-fits-all solution. No single silver bullet is going to work on
everyone. Due to natural revelation and common grace, some unbelievers are open
to rational persuasion. To deny that is Manichaean.

Even if you could
evangelize everyone, that wouldn’t convert everyone. Evangelism is not a
substitute for law.

God’s calling isn’t limited
to evangelists. There are many different Christian vocations.

“I saw almost no
substantial critiques of Mitt Romney throughout this campaign, besides the
obvious Mormonism motif. My eyes did not see one negative mention of the “47%
comments…”

I was unable to vote for
Romney because I don’t know that he has a stable moral core — so how can I
reasonably trust him? I haven’t the faintest idea who he is or what he stands
for, nor am I sure that he even knows…Obama offers no panacea, but at least I
think we know who he is and what he wants to pursue.

Is it really okay with so
many Christians that Mitt Romney was waving his sabre (militarily and
economically), talking about Iran and China…

steve hays

November 7, 2012 at 4:33 pm

So you prefer voting for someone
you know is evil rather than voting for someone who may or may not be evil.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

And what about Iran?

Mark T

November 7, 2012 at 4:21
pm

It’s way easier to
pretend poor people don’t exist — but the church doesn’t do a very good job of
helping them if we can’t even *see* them (and your whole proposal rests on the
ability to see them, which you apparently don’t).

steve hays

November 7, 2012 at 4:34 pm

Obama is contributing to
poverty.

David Davis

November 7, 2012 at 11:04
am

I agree with some of your
points about morality but I strongly disagree about the role of government.
Morality should be encouraged by example and good works. Not at the point of a
gun held by a tyrant. A lot of “tough” laws are destroying families and
branding people as criminals for life who should be given a chance to improve.

steve hays

November 7, 2012 at 12:14
pm

What laws are you alluding
to?

steve hays

November 7, 2012 at 4:53
pm

Mark S

“Why would anyone ever
want to be a Christian after talking to these people? The racism,
conspiracy-mongering and hyper-individuality reached epic levels among
Christians this election season.”

You yourself are
indulging in prejudicial, defamatory stereotyping.

“Don’t believe me?”

No, I don’t.

“Go back and look at all
those emails your Christian friend circulated.”

What emails would those
be? So, no, I still don’t believe you.

“Shameful.”

What’s shameful is your
own bigotry.

“By the way, did anyone
get any of those emails Christians were circulating about Romney’s Mormonism
and his high ranking positions in the church? No? Oh yeah, they don’t exist
because Christians conveniently ignored it.”

You suffer from
self-reinforcing ignorance. You despise conservative Christians, so you don’t
bother to actually study what they said or didn’t say.

Romney’s Mormonism was an
issue during the primaries in both election cycles. But once he became the
nominee, the relevant comparison was Obama.

“How about we start
embracing the immigrant?”

No one is stopping you
from doing that. Why don’t you invite them to stay in your home? Why don’t you
give them your credit card or debit card?

If you really cared about
the plight of immigrants, why don’t you move to Latin America, roll up your
sleeves, and try to fix the problem at the source?

It’s not as if the
immigrant issue has been ignored by conservative Christians. Take James
Hoffmeier’s The Immigration Crisis.

However, American can’t
host all the poor people of the world. American wage-earners aren’t responsible
for providing for all the poor people of the world.

“How about we start
demanding Wall Street and big corporations follow the same standards those
‘shiftless poor folks?’ Why don’t we demand corporations and big oil care for
and protect God’s creation?”

Why is big business bad,
but big government is good?

Green policies hurt the
poor by shutting down job-producing industries while hiking the price of food
and fuel.

“How about we invest in
our teacher and schools so that every child has an opportunity to succeed?”

We sink thousands of
dollars per child into public education. Money is no substitute for competent
teachers, a quality curriculum, and motivated students.

“How about we stop
worrying so much ourselves and ‘our’ money and look at ways we can invest in
our communities?”

i) Richardson doesn’t seem to
be a Bible scholar. Rather, he appears to be one of those ubiquitous “prophecy
teachers.” I don’t think he has any more inherent credibility on this subject
than Hal Lindsey, Harold Camping, Tim LaHaye, or John Hagee.

I’m not suggesting we should
dismiss prophecy teachers out of hand. But we need to distinguish the genuine
Bible scholars from the hucksters.

And unless I missed
something, there’s no evidence that he can read Muslim primary sources in the
original languages.

ii) On a related note, he
strikes me as a guy who’s cashing in on the post-9/11 interest in Islam. This
is his meal ticket.

Now maybe that’s not fair.
That’s just my impression.

A more charitable
interpretation is that he’s sincere guy who’s captivated by his own system of
prophecy.

iii) You can currently find a
free, online version of his position here:

Admittedly, I’ve skimmed his
material. I don’t think he’s worth investing a lot of time one. That’s a snap
judgment, but folks like him are a dime a dozen, so we have to pick our
targets.

iv) I don’t have any
antecedent objection to the possibility that the Antichrist will be Muslim,
although I define the Antichrist more broadly than he does–for reasons I’ve
given in my prequel (see above).

That said:

v) His comparisons between
Biblical eschatology and Muslim eschatology are an exercise in misdirection.
Since Muslim eschatology is largely bogus–except where it pilfers the Bible–the
details of Muslim eschatology have zero predictive value. We shouldn’t use that
material to interpret or filter the Bible.

vi) He makes a big deal about
the Mahdi. To my knowledge, the Mahdi is central to Shiite eschatology, but
more peripheral to other branches of Islam (e.g. Sunni, Ibadi).

So he’s using an
eschatological paradigm which represents the minority report in Islam.

vii) Even if an Islamic
Antichrist were consistent with Biblical prophecy, this doesn’t mean Bible
prophecy implies or predicts an Islamic Antichrist. For other candidates may
also be consistent with Biblical prophecy. Why single out the Islamic
candidate?

The threats to Christianity
are both internal and external.Major external threats include secularism as well as Islam. Major
internal threats include cults and heresies like Mormonism and Roman
Catholicism.

Sometimes these intersect.
Theological liberalism poses an internal threat to Christianity, but that
derives its inspiration from secularism.

All these diverse movements
have an Antichrist aspect.

viii) There’s no factual or
exegetical reason for him to equate the great apostasy with conversions to
Islam. 9/11 didn’t result in mass conversion to Islam.

To the extent that Islam
becomes dominant in Europe and the UK, as well as making inroads in the US,
that may result in widespread assimilation. On the other hand, there may be a
popular backlash.

ix) If you view the
Antichrist as an invincible military dictator who is bound to conquer the
world, who can only be vanquished by the return of Christ, then that’s a
prescription for unilateral disarmament. Armed resistance is futile. Pacifistic
martyrdom is our only recourse.

And, indeed, that’s where
he’s going with “How Should We Respond?” Needless to say, laying down our arms
in the face of militant Islam is a self-fulfilling prophecy. We’d be dooming
ourselves to oblivion.